Your heart rate.....

btuman43

It might be higher than 185... How many days do you have to recover before running again and not feeling any strain? Bottom line is that the human body can sustain a high HR for a short amount of time, but the penalty is that you burn more glycogen (fuel in the form of food you just ate) vs fat. So you'd need adequate recovery time, probably a few days, before you can exercise again.

I usually have at least one rest day in between, but since I am more concerned with burning fat maybe I am better off keeping my heart rate around 160-165 and not try to make it as intense as I possibly can stand. Thanx for the info!!! I will have to do some more homework on this since now I have a direction to look.

jmijares

I usually have at least one rest day in between, but since I am more concerned with burning fat maybe I am better off keeping my heart rate around 160-165 and not try to make it as intense as I possibly can stand. Thanx for the info!!! I will have to do some more homework on this since now I have a direction to look.

You could also widen that fat burning range as well. It kinda depends upon which heart rate formula you use to calculate your training zones. At 40, with a max HR of 191, my aerobic zone is roughly between 150-165 bpm. I use the Karvonen formula so it also factors in your average morning resting heart rate. That particular formula works better for me. It makes the zones just wee bit higher than the standard formula, but when I push things so that I'm training for extended periods in the Lactic Threshold zone (Zone 4 of 5), then I'm usually too tired to work out the next day.

One of the best books I've ever read on heart rate monitor training is "Heart Rate Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L Parker. It's out of print, but can be found from sellers on the internet. Lots of good advice in the book. I actually started running because of it.

Definitely try to experiment with different training zones. And most importantly, have fun!

BoresEasily

I usually have at least one rest day in between, but since I am more concerned with burning fat maybe I am better off keeping my heart rate around 160-165 and not try to make it as intense as I possibly can stand. Thanx for the info!!! I will have to do some more homework on this since now I have a direction to look.

You could also widen that fat burning range as well. It kinda depends upon which heart rate formula you use to calculate your training zones. At 40, with a max HR of 191, my aerobic zone is roughly between 150-165 bpm. I use the Karvonen formula so it also factors in your average morning resting heart rate. That particular formula works better for me. It makes the zones just wee bit higher than the standard formula, but when I push things so that I'm training for extended periods in the Lactic Threshold zone (Zone 4 of 5), then I'm usually too tired to work out the next day.

Please tell me you don't mean the 60-70% so-called aerobic zone which is a myth perpetuated by the fitness industry.
I love that you're using Karvonen though.

HealthyChanges2010

bump

floridabootcamp

The easiest way to calculate your Max Heart Rate (MHR) is to subtract your age from 220. (The more accurate ways involve knowing your resting heart rate.)

220 - 40 = 180

Based on this method I wouldn't suggest going above 180.

There are other methods that involve knowing your resting heart rate......Everyone's body is different so no one method is 100% accurate but they all are effective tools. As your body gets stronger it will take much more to get your heart rate up that high....

floridabootcamp

Most of the machines at the gym are going to be "off" a bit. If you need accurate numbers they you might have to go out and get your own devise. You can get by without one though...

jmijares

Please tell me you don't mean the 60-70% so-called aerobic zone which is a myth perpetuated by the fitness industry.
I love that you're using Karvonen though.

Didn't know it was a myth perpetuated by the fitness industry. What's the backstory behind it?

I only have three zones that I use. Well, I'm only supposed to use two: less than 70% MHR and greater than 85% MHR. Lately, I've been running between those two zones because of the weather. Running in the rain is okay, but once it gets harder and water starts running off in the streets, it ain't too much fun so I pick up the pace and I find myself between the two...

BoresEasily

The aerobic/fat burning zone doesn't mean you're burning more fat which is what people have been led to believe and so continue to tell everyone they know. It simply means that the % of fat calories will be greater during the mythological fat-burning zone. You will burn less calories than you would if you were working at a higher intensity where you would burn more over-all fat but with a lower % coming from fat. By exercising at a higher intensity you will burn more calories over-all and more over-all from fat. One of the pages I was on recently had recommended a change in where the aerobic zone should be and it was at 70-85% I think. They also recommended making 60-70% zone your recovery zone. I thought that was a great idea. I'll see if I can find the link. I have so many links it's not funny.

BoresEasily

Found it. Here you go I hope you enjoy.

http://shadowfit.com/articles/index.php/archives/1210

floridabootcamp

Agreed....the fat burning zone is a complete waste of time unless you have medical issues that won't allow you to do anything more intense. Companies that make the cardio equipment don't make it any better by putting these charts on the machines that lead people to believe the myth.

cutmd

I wonder how long those of you with very high heart rates drug exercise have been training? I find this a bit strange. You should only be able to sustain your hiit zone (about 90% mhr) for 1-2 minutes, so I guess many of you have a higher the average mhr. I'm 32 and the only thing that can get me to 180 is insanity, and yes I'm panting and full of lactic acid by then. On the elliptical I have to push it to get to 170s. I usually sit in the 160s doing regular aerobics. I've been working out regularly for 2 years and consider myself in decent shape...

I know hydration level, sleep deprivation, alcohol, smoking, and caffeine also affect heart rate. I think the most important thing is to stop if you have chest pain, dizziness, or can't breath

Fineraziel

I dont know if its good or bad... But the highest my HR can go is 176. :embarassed: And when it does, I feel very bad like Ive pushed it too hard and I absolutely need a little break to recover and let my HR go down. Usually when I do cardio workout, my HR is 135-165, I sweat a lot and cant really talk.

My HR at rest is kind of low : 55, when I sit down and relax. Im 29 years old and my current weight is 155 lbs for 5'8". I dont think I am completely out of shape since I work out almost everyday (aerobic dancing and strenght training at home). But Ive never been the sportive type and was pretty much "sedentary" for the past few years. I have started working out only 4 months ago.

So am I normal, doctor ??? :embarassed:

cutmd

fineraziel, I think you're normal, personally

Today I hit the elliptical and was able to go to 177, I averaged 168 which was high for me. So maybe part of it is psychological?

The other thing is I wonder if heart rate really correlates with calories. Sometimes I feel like I'm dying and my heart rate is 160, other times I am feeling fine at 165. The degree of muscles also being worked have to come into play in the calorie burn

mlb929

I actually came here today just to try to figure out what I should be at. I'm also 40, and the max I ever get, no matter how hard I think I'm working, is 170. I read on these boards where people are burning 900 calories doing P90X. I did Kenpo today and had 282 calories burned, and I worked really hard. I've heard that 85% of your maximum is where you want to be for optimum calorie burn. My averaged about 140 today. I consider myself fairly fit and am within 5-8 lbs of my goal weight.

BoresEasily

mlb929, I believe it was stated before but it just seems your max is higher than the usual formula. To find your true max you should go have yourself tested if you can afford it. They'll be able to tell you where you should be training and what to set your limits to once you've done the max test.

triben

the original post asked if a certain heart rate was to high. it all depends on the person, how much physical conditioning they have and any medical I.e. cardiac problems they have. If your heart rate is elevated and you don't feel short of breath or have chest pains then you are ok. The measurement of heart rate is important for defining the intensity that you are working out. it changes with age, quality of your heart, meeds you maybe taking and can be different for the same level of exertion while doing different types of exercise like running compared to biking. there are a number of different formulas published. they are all estimates with some being better that others. the gold standard is to actually find out your max heart rate for the given exercise you are doing. there are different sport specific protocols out there. Many people use the max heart rate along with resting heart rate to help define specific workout zones. by doing heart rate and zone training you can train better for different activities. a person that trains for sprinting events would not want to do the majority of their training at 60% MHR because that does not stress the the anaerobic pathways needed. the converse would be true for a marathon runner. It is not a myth that a person will burn preferentially more fat at lower percentage of max heart rate. This have been proven and is a key concept for endurance and ultra endurance events. the key is that if you want to lose weight then you are wasting your time staying in that low zone because your over all amount of calories will be less as stated above. the average person has between 60 and 90 minutes of glycogen stores which will should cover all efforts under 90% max heart rate.

If you are going to test your max heart rate make sure you are physically fit enough and cleared for exercise by your doctor. formulas are good also and will do the job just well for the majority of use not competing at a high level. The heart rate is too high if you are, faint, dizzy, or have chest pain. good luck.

For any runners out there a great resource for grainy is the Lore of Running

BoresEasily

If you are going to test your max heart rate make sure you are physically fit enough and cleared for exercise by your doctor. formulas are good also and will do the job just well for the majority of use not competing at a high level. The heart rate is too high if you are, faint, dizzy, or have chest pain. good luck.

The test I was recommending is done in a lab with professionals. The person being tested is under constant supervision and pushed to their limits.

BoresEasily

It is not a myth that a person will burn preferentially more fat at lower percentage of max heart rate. This have been proven and is a key concept for endurance and ultra endurance events. the key is that if you want to lose weight then you are wasting your time staying in that low zone because your over all amount of calories will be less as stated above.

Yes it is and you won't burn more fat over all. You will burn a higher percentage from fat but fewer calories and less fat over all. Here's a hypothetical situation.

I burn 350 calories while jumping rope for half an hour at 80% of my max. I only burn 40% from fat.
Another person with the same specs as me jumps for that same half hour but we'll say he only burns 200 calories at 60% of his max but 55% of those calories are from fat.

350 x .40 = 140
200 x .55 = 110

I may only be burning 40% of my calories from fat but I'm burning more calories and in turn more fat over all.

triben

no metabolic testing shows that at different intensities of exercise utilizes different metabolic pathays. at elevated levels your body is unable to process fat in a timely manner. your body will shift to glycogen. since you will primarily use glycogen that source will be used at least for the first 60 to 90 minutes. then after your workout you will eat and restore those stores. ultra distance athletes can not go for 5, 6 and 7 hours at 85% max because they don't have an energy source. now if you spend a workout depleting your glycogen stores and then continue to stay in a negative caloric balance afterward your body will start to breakdown fat. at intensities above 90 percent you will primarily use the phospho-creatine system that last minutes.

the physiology of what happens at a cellular level is different than what happens at a macro level throughout the day. I agree high intensity burns more calories but the question is how does the body get from A to B. the scientific evidence is strong. it just has to be interpreted correctly. At lower exercise level you will predominately burn fat as an energy source but over all you burn less calories. that does not mean that you can not lose fat by working out at higher intensities but you have to make sure that you are still at a caloric deficit for the day. losing wait is simple, energy in vs energy out. the hard part is getting that equation in your favor.

if you don't believe me. do a pubmed search on exercise intensity and metabolic pathways.

jmijares

Found it. Here you go I hope you enjoy.

http://shadowfit.com/articles/index.php/archives/1210

Interesting article. As a user of FirstBeat Athlete, I like the simplified explanation of EPOC. Though the article doesn't cite any sources or research.